Forgive me if I laugh and then kick the wall.

[Paper Roses]

I listen to the news AM and PM. That is the extent of my TV watching. Tonight on out local 6PM talk show, the host showed a clip that made me laugh and angry. It is not about the candidate, it is about the perception.
Hillary said..and I'm sure others too... that she would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year.

In my day, that was a huge salary and I feel it still is. I know many people in the workplace who earn far less. Is this plateau what the politicians see as a low level? I can't even find the words to express how dumbfounded I am.

If you earn anywhere near this figure, good for you. If you wonder what it is like to survive on far, far less, just ask around. Talk to your neighbor, a friend, a young person?

Try talking to am old timer who is trying to survive on Social Security.
Heck,I'd take 10% of the $250,000 and feel I was in 7th heaven.

I know I'm out of date, just an old timer who has trouble accepting things the way they are.

This is not about Hillary, it is about survival.

[daleanime]

1. Yes it is.

[Hortensis]

47. "households of 4 earning up to $250,000/year"

would be taxed as middle class.

I agree that's far more than we ever made before retirement. But it's not unreachably more than our children's two-working-adult households bring in these days. One of them probably is nudging up in that direction, guessing from the money they're pouring into remodeling their new house.

The other, who are self employed, probably bring in less than half that but could also if they hired a sitter for the kids after school and took on more clients. And if she took a steady-paying job again as a high-school teacher? Another $60+K right there. That upper range would be reachable if they cared to reach harder.

They are all middle class. Half of all households in America have two incomes.

And remember, people in urban areas have to be paid more than rural because it costs far more to live in urban areas. But there is also just a lot more money floating around urban areas, so most people with nice incomes live there. Just for perspective, a registered nurse in an urban area earns over $60K/year, up to about $90K. Same for accountants, although upper range incomes are over $100K. See why the $250,000 ceiling for a couple with children?

BTW, that $250,000 upper limit for the middle class tax bracket was also supported by both Obama and Romney in the last election.

And "kicking the wall?" YES, thanks to conservative economic policy, there is now an enormous rift between people for whom $250,000 could be doable in another decade of hard work and planning, including perhaps moving to an area with higher salaries, and those for whom it is completely unrealistic. I remember when there was no real rift between classes of working people -- back in the 1970s before enthusiasm for dysfunctional and exploitative conservative economic policies swept the country.

Vote Democrat to return to policies that build prosperity for the working classes.

[pangaia]

54. Accountants earn $60,000 - $90,000?

I didn't google anything but my accountant, for a small business, charges $175/hour. And that is in a city of about 500,000 people.

[Hortensis]

56. Well, $175 x 2000 hours would be $350,000, true. Is that

Your estimate of what the typical 35-yo employee with an accounting degree makes? Any way you look at it, $250,000 still seems appropriate as an upper limit in today's America, tho.

One problem is that many more people saw themselves as middle class, rather than in the working class as they technically were, because they were able to live comfortably and fairly securely, according to their standards, and have money left over that could be saved up a bit for some luxuries, travel, education, investment, or whatever. I actually feel that should be a definition of the lower middle class, but traditionally economists have not.

[pangaia]

61. I just can not think of $150,000 as 'Middle Class.'

I also do not see education as a luxury.

[yeoman6987]

2. Isn't that the same number president Obama used?

Not sure why that's the magic number but it certainly worked for the president.

[merrily]

14. Please see reply 10.

[pandr32]

3. Perhaps you should change perspective...

Instead of looking at where the "low level" for privilege is, how about looking at the top level for combined household income (not individual) to still qualify as middle class, albeit it upper middle class? The cap has to go somewhere and a combined household income of $250,000 is the cut off. I think few would argue that above $250,000 is unfair to afford the higher tax bracket. Middle class is a range from low to high. Most middle class families would be well under this maximum point, of course, and at the same time, wealthy people tend to have a combined household household income of more than $250,000 per year, and their taxes will go up instead of the reverse--it is about time.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. You did a great job

of explaining just what is used for Governmental Statistics . Most folks would love to make the 250k,but settle for the 50-75k and just get on with life.

[merrily]

18. Please see Reply 10.

[awake]

5. So at what level of income do you fell taxis need to go up?

$200k, $150k $100K.....

[Scootaloo]

27. Wha point do you think is too high?

$250k, $300k, a million... How far do you want to extend the "middle class" to keep wealthy people safe from the burden of being taxed?

[awake]

31. I am fine with raising taxes on people making $250k are you

[Scootaloo]

33. I'm fine with well-thought progressive taxation.

Your hinging your position on the concept of taxes as a punishment, like "oh those people are too rich, let's take away their money!"

Instead it's "everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes."

[awake]

35. Wow how did you ever get that from my post?

I said nothing about " taxes as a punishment" or "oh those people are too rich, let's take away their money!"
Lets not read into a post something that is not there. My 1st question was to the OP as to how low of income they wanted to start raising taxes on, simple as that.

[Scootaloo]

38. i got it from the nature of that question

My 1st question was to the OP as to how low of income they wanted to start raising taxes on, simple as that.

By now I think everyone can recognize attempts at "gotcha" questions like this. the person answers lower than $250k and you will deride them for that. They say "I don't know' and you will deride them for that, too. Seriously, it's not a very clever trick, and most people over the age of nine on the internet see it clear enough.

The deeper problem than your bad attempt at 'gotcha" is the crux of your position - that there ought to be a 'floor", below which people are spared the awful, terrible burden of taxes. This idea absolutely has its roots in America's quite fervent anti-tax culture, whether you were aware of it or not, whether it was your intent or not.

Everyone needs to pay their fair share towards the user fees for society. With progressive taxation, this does mean that there will be people who pay no taxes. But that "floor" needs to depend on several year-by-year figures and calculations, and there's no real way to just pull out a fast number like say, $250k and say "that'll be the limit!"

[awake]

39. Well I belive you are reading way too much into the question

I my mind $250k a year is thought to be rich by most and increasing tax on every dollar made over $250k should not be an issue.
Contrary to how you have pigeon holed me I think that our real tax issue is the cap on Social Security tax, in my mind the taxes that are payed to cover earned benefits like Social Security & Medicare should be charged on all income that one makes including interest, dividends and capital gains there is no reason to cap or limit the payments as is now the case. Please do not assume that you know the intent of a poster not everything is a "gotcha" question, some times questions are asked to better understand where a OP is coming from not some form of ambush.

[Scootaloo]

40. Well, good because that's not the issue at all

The issue is characterizing $250k as "middle class", and making it the cutoff point on new taxation on that basis.

[awake]

42. One can read the cutoff at $250k as being clearly rich

So as to be sure that no one in the "middle class" are included
There are some family's in NY city for example who have 2 or 3 children and feel that making over $200k includes them in middle class. So the issue in my mind is not that $250k is "middle class" but rather that one can say that it is clearly say it is upper class.

[Scootaloo]

43. Most americans "feel" they are part of the middle class

Not because they actually are, but because of a desire to not be perceived as "abnormal." Poorness carries a pretty harsh stigma with it, and nobody wants to think of themselves as a rich elitist, either.

So that wealthy family you're talking about, and someone scraping by in a trailer park, both would tend to consider themselves 'middle class."

Of course, "middle class" isn't really up to interpretation from perspective.

[GoneFishin]

6. As a cut off point, eh. But it definitely smacks of being out of touch. Nearly $5000 a week

is a shitload of money. You would qualify for an $8000 monthly mortgage payment, but with some aggressive saving you could probably buy a nice house in cash.

This cut off point is less about what is fair and more about playing the statistical curve to piss off the fewest affluent donors with the most expendable cash.

[Skidmore]

7. I'm less concerned about

$250K as a cutoff point. I thought the goal was to rein in millionaires and billionaires. Do we begrudge people the fruits of their labor? Are we striving for everyone to live in penury? I thought reestablishing the middle class was desirable. I may be wrong.

[merrily]

11. Increasing taxes on the first dollar OVER $250K puts people in penury now? LOL!

[Skidmore]

15. You need to read for comprehension.

I did not say that and you will not mischaracterize my point. One gets the impression that anything above subsistence level is considered wealthy. The truth is that many professional couples earn at about this level, small business owners do as well, and there are economies of scale between cities and regions. Too broad a snark brush you like to wield.

[merrily]

22. That's exactly what your going on about penury in this context implies.

Your entire post, on a thread about raising taxes on people with income over $250K a year and only those people.

I am less concerned about

$250K as a cutoff point. I thought the goal was to rein in millionaires and billionaires. Do we begrudge people the fruits of their labor? Are we striving for everyone to live in penury? I thought reestablishing the middle class was desirable. I may be wrong.

[Skidmore]

25. No it does not.

I get the impression that there is an expectation that people who make higher incomes should suddenly give it all away. It is unrealistic and will never happen unless the whole economy is scaled back to include commodoties and resources costing less as well. I would hope the goal is to raise people up, not begrudge others what they have earned. Now if you want to talk about inheritance or those who make money on money, that's something else.

[merrily]

37. Yes it did & Please! The first $250K will not be touched at all. Income above that will be taxed

somewhat more than now, and progressively, not confiscated. Again, we are talking the top 5% in income.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/02/media-figures-argue-that-250000-in-income-is-no/159931

[Skidmore]

46. Did I say that it would be confiscated? No.

I said that I believe that there is an impression that people would expected to just hand over their wealth. Now how the Sanders' campaign presents its ideas does make a difference. If you want to focus on anger, expect people to react negatively and for those misperceptions to result. It does help if you really listen to others and quit trying to shape their comments to fit your agenda. Stop trying to impute meanings to my comments that are not there. It is cynical and dishonest.

[merrily]

48. You didn't say confiscated in those words, but you spoke of it that way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251901460

A direct quote from your post:

I get the impression that there is an expectation that people who make higher incomes should suddenly give it all away.

(bolding is mine).

What the heck is that supposed to convey, in the context of a discussion of a tax increase, other than an onerously excessive tax, aka a "confiscatory" tax?

It is cynical and dishonest.

Baloney. The real issue is that you refuse to take responsibility for the import of the words you post.

Your posts are there for all to see. It's not as though I've hidden them, leaving only my interpretation of them visible. To the contrary, I quoted one in full in one of my posts and in part in this one. No one is being forced to agree with my reading of your posts. Using words like cynical and dishonest under these circumstances is rude and uncalled for, much as telling me, upthread, that I didn't read was rude and uncalled for. I'm done with your rudeness.

[pangaia]

55. You are right.

I have no idea what Skidmore is talking about.

[merrily]

62. Thank you!

[George II]

57. I learned a long time ago that "you get a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar".

[starroute]

12. The goal is to have enough to do what the country needs

Maintain and hopefully expand social security. Fix our crumbling infrastructure. Make education affordable. All of that. And raising taxes only on the top 2 percent isn't going to do it.

You say "the goal was to rein in millionaires and billionaires." But anybody making over $250,000 a year almost certainly has at least a million in their house and investments. And asking them to pay a couple more thousand a year in taxes isn't going to plunge them into the "penury" of somebody living on $75,000.

The current Congressional salary is $174,000 a year. If you want a cutoff point, it might make more sense to peg it to that.

[Lucky Luciano]

32. Bad assumption

"But anybody making over $250,000 a year almost certainly has at least a million in their house and investments."

Jobs that pay that much are often very insecure with volatile incomes. They are also more likely to be in places with high costs of living, so saving a million bucks takes a long time.

The $250K number does seem wealthy if it is your basic jobby-job that one generally has for 30 years. These jobs often have a lot of stormy times with layoffs, bad years, and other catastrophes that happen for someone that probably pays high rent/mortgage. As a result, people earning this much always feel insecure that the tug can be yanked out from under them without a good way to replace the income commensurate with their expenses.

Also, these jobs are often highly bonus dependent with a much lower base salary - the bonus being very stochastic and hard to depend on. Another reason such people often don't feel rich - basically, it is hard to feel rich if you have a job that you can't afford to lose.

[starroute]

41. That would make sense - only the IRS doesn't work that way

There used to be a feature in the tax code where self-employed people who earned an unusually large amount in one year could average it over the next several years for tax purposes. This was especially helpful for novelists and screenwriters and people like that who might work on a project for an extended period and get one lump sum when it was published/produced. But that went away a long time ago, and now if you get a large advance one year, you have to pay taxes on it the same as if you could expect to earn that amount every year.

So I'll grant your point that the person making $250,000 in a single year isn't necessarily going to have the savings/investments/assets that would go along with making that much every year. But since the IRS doesn't care these days about fluctuating income for the self-employed, it seems like special pleading to expect them to care about it for employees.

[Ed Suspicious]

17. I don't consider the vice president or speaker of the house to be middle class no matter how you

look at it. In 2000 the President made 200,000. I guess when your salary doubles to 400,000 over 15 years your perspective on what is rich and poor changes. Fact of the matter is incomes for regular people have nowhere near doubled. No state in the union has a median income of much over $70,000. 250,000 is rich from where I'm sitting.

[Skidmore]

23. We are barely middle class and at the very lower end.

I don't begrudge people making a little more than we do. I do know that our income would never allow us to live in a city like NY. Not all parameters are equal everywhere.

[Scootaloo]

28. "Do we begrudge people the fruits of their labor"?

You know that casting taxation as some sort of punishment for wealth is a solid, staple, right-wing talking point, right?

[Skidmore]

50. I know that economies of communities are not one size fits all

and that it is unrealistic assume that a great leveling based on income demands that someone give some thing up. Common sense should inform you of that. The question at hand seems to me to be exactly who will do so.

[Lucky Luciano]

20. After taxes, it would be about $13K per month. $8k/mo for a mortgage? No way. nt

[monmouth4]

8. From a Canadian...LOL..

As a Canadian, I cannot figure out how in the blue blazes, a person such as Hillary Clinton , can even be in the running. Its like crapping in your hands to keep them warm.

[stupidicus]

9. LOL --- thanks

that's a good way of putting it

[Rose Siding]

24. From an American...LOL

I couldn't figure how in blue blazes Rob Ford got reelected. Sorry it's just that your remark, "Its like crapping in your hands to keep them warm" reminded me of something he might say.

She's in the running because she was a successful Senator, SoS -the best he could have chosen according to Pres Obama- and someone who has always served the public well. In fact, she's been the most admired woman in the world for a record 20 years. We know how to pick 'em!

[Scootaloo]

29. "Mayor of Toronto" is a rather different position than "President of the United States"

[merrily]

10. Per MSNBC: $250K a year = top 5% of wage earners. Raising taxes on the top 5% is meaningless.

[santafe52]

13. That's a lot of money.

People who make $250,000 a year are very wealthy. Most real people I know make between $25,000 and $60,000 a year. Very few of my friends, family and associates have savings accounts. I don't know anybody that would be able to survive in their Golden Years without their social security… and 75% of them will be working well into their 70s.

Thanks, Reagan!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. They asked the rich what they consider the minimum was to be considered "rich"....

They said, "seven million". As in seven million a YEAR. That means in 20 years you have a hundred and forty million.

This is the MINIMUM to be considered "rich" by the rich. Most make much more.

Hillary is proud to know them too.

[GoneFishin]

51. LOL. Talk about being out of fucking touch. For most average people "rich" is when you have way, way

more than you need to survive. For these greedy assholes "rich" is how much you need to impress your snotty peers.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. It explains why she thinks a quarter million a year is "middle class"....

She makes that much for two speaking engagements.

[Cassiopeia]

19. 10% of that is well above minimum wage.

Millions of working people, of all age groups, would be in 7th heaven to get 10% of that outrageous "middle class" number.

[99Forever]

21. You're not out of date. Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton is tone deaf.

$250,000 a year is a fortune to the vast majority of us.

Anyone who tries to portray it otherwise, is full of $hit.

[orpupilofnature57]

26. She has worked for the 1% all her life, Hillary and Bill and the Donald are of the same ilk .

[WillyT]

30. I Remember When It Was An Amazing Fact, Back In The Day, That...

The CEO of General Motors made $250,000 a year, while the President of the U.S. only made $200,000 a year.

[GoneFishin]

52. Yep. I remember that the CEO of a company I worked for made 35 times my wage and thinking nobody,

but no-fucking-body actually works as hard as 35 people to merit that kind of wage. But now CEOs make 500 times lower wage earners.

The world is fucked up.

[tularetom]

34. Actually, it depends on HOW MUCH the taxes would be raised on those earning $250k+

I could make a case that the entire budget could be balanced without charging a penny of income tax to anyone earning less than $250K per year. Simply eliminate all the corporate tax breaks and charge corporations at the actual rates enumerated in the tax code, then raise the brackets for higher income taxpayers to 50% for incomes above, say $1 million.

I may not have the numbers exactly right, since I didn't actually do the math, but there is a huge margin to be explored by creating new higher brackets for higher incomes.

Clinton won't do this of course, but I don't think $250K is the deal breaker that some believe it is.

[haikugal]

45. I agree...

End corporate welfare...put it to use for the people of the country. End privatization and restore the commons.

[ronbison]

36. Just to clarify

Tax hikes only effect the amount over the cut off level...if you made 300k, the increase would only apply to the 50k over 250,000. I

know it is obvious, but in reading the comments some did not seem to realize this, or maybe they are just being disingenuous. The

right wing talking points are so prevalent that you can pick them up by osmosis and the next thing you know you are passing the hat for

a 5 percenter.

[snagglepuss]

44. I didn't know that (300K example) and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd love to know how many

people earn 250,000.

[RiverLover]

49. $16 million. This is the amt Bill "earned" in speaking fees in one year.

Hillary's last year as SOS. (many from the same companies dealing with the state dept at the time.)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/opinions/davis-hillary-clinton-foundation-speaking-fees/

She can't really relate to us commoners anymore.

[riversedge]

53. Pay attention instead of smacking down good Democrats. The OP is about survival-

[OnionPatch]

59. I know it's been argued to death here

But just under 250k is not "rich" in certain areas of California and New York. At least not as a family income. It may be well off, and is certainly upper middle class, but not rich. And I say this as a Bernie supporter and someone who has lived many years in poverty. (I made too little to even file a couple of years.)

When I think about taxing the rich, I really mean the rich. Like millionaires and billionaires and wealthy corporations. They are the ones who are paying too little taxes now. I think if we focus on those groups we would have the support to actually achieve something. Our definition of rich needs to leave no room for debate.

I have some gripes with Hillary, but this isn't one of them.

[mhatrw]

60. Yeah, but those people are barely making dividends meet! nt